Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky
Black Iron Foundries Phoebe Freeport Republic
31
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 15:52:12 -
[151] - Quote
Hakaari Inkuran wrote: If you are areguing extenders need a nerf i agree. Non t2 plates needed a nerf though.
I didn't argue that, I clearly pointed out that T2 plates got shafted obviously while shields got buffed through the roof.
Non T2 plates didn't need nerfing, there was nothing wrong with them, in FW I hardly see plates used at all anymore because people would rather run AAR's because AAR's don't give mass penalties which results in heavy speed and agility penalties. I don't use the punisher anymore for 2 reasons, 1. it has no ability for utilities, 2. its forced to be flown one way and its slow as hell.
I've seen people run 200mm plated condors so they can fill their mids with utilities because thats how hard you can gimp things to work in extraneous ways. This doesn't call for a meta plate nerf that doesn't solve anything, its not OP at all and a small shield extender with these changes would poison that anyway. There is nothing OP about 400mm plates purely because of that speed and agility loss. yea your signature is slightly lower but does it matter at all when you're far less agile? its counter intuitive.
Kiting metas and kiting ships should have been left to a skill based thing where pilots could out fly others purely because they actually know how to fly their ships. Not this implicated kite role that makes even the most mindless set ups able to kite about.
Wanna run an armor kite ship? don't run a plate or trimarks because you're shooting yourself in the foot right off the bat.
trouserdeagle wrote:rigs give you most of the penalties
I'd argue that with the mass penalty of plates you're adopting agility loss which means you align slower, your acceleration and deceleration is slower and your overall speed is less. Its a double whammy and it has ruined armor meta in the game in favor of kite shield ships that can load their lows with damage and tracking mods and fill their mids with all the tank in the world. This is particularly where the Kiting Shield Ishtar doctrines come from. 5 mids 5 lows, they fill their mids with dual shield extenders, and resist mods to fill gaps. Lows are either 4 drone damage amps and a nano, DCU or shield flux coil.
Why aren't they running armor ishtars? because they're objectively worse. Low speed, low agility, less damage than the shield set up and they're prone to sitting still because their speed is so low and they will get spiked by other ships because they're standing virtually still in comparison. Yea you can fill your mids with utilities but in this example, Heavy drones don't really need the assist, nor do geckos or even sentries, yea they help but its obviously not required. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1092
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 16:08:42 -
[152] - Quote
yeah and I'd argue that the mass penalty is tiny, so who cares |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1780
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 17:40:01 -
[153] - Quote
CCP Delegate Zero wrote:
The former case - modules variants that are removed will be turned into remaining variants.
Would be cool to have details: What is turned into what? And I mean in a general sense, we never get told how the transformation process will work. Also, what about the cases where a new module appears? Like prop mods I believe.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky
Black Iron Foundries Phoebe Freeport Republic
31
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 18:04:51 -
[154] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:yeah and I'd argue that the mass penalty is tiny, so who cares edit: I actually read your post Quote:Why aren't they running armor ishtars? because they're objectively worse. Low speed, low agility, less damage than the shield set up and they're prone to sitting still because their speed is so low and they will get spiked by other ships because they're standing virtually still in comparison. Yea you can fill your mids with utilities but in this example, Heavy drones don't really need the assist, nor do geckos or even sentries, yea they help but its obviously not required. I don't know where to start with this. I don't want to respond to every sentence individually with 'this is wrong'. I don't believe I am wrong though. I've been flying ishtars in null for a while to know how they work and how they're used. Shield ishtars are so popular because of the raw DPS output with the tanks being very high. This is part of the reason why I opt against armor vexors because a shield vexor while it tanks a little less in comparison, its far faster, more agile and does way more DPS because your low slots aren't reserved for tank mods but instead massive amounts of damage mods.
Remember that mass penalty does two things. the first thing it does is make you harder to turn, accelerate, align, get to warp all sorts of agility related things. The second thing that penalty does is reduce your top speed which means you're going to be less able to create angular velocity against a target, it means you're more prone to missile damage and DPS can be activated on you easier. It means you can't catch targets as easily and it makes you sit still more, double backing to the DPS application, you become far easier to shoot at. the rigs further reduce your speed not as a function of mass but just a pure penalty to top speed, it means your AB's and MWD's are less effective because they scale relative to your base, which sounds like I'm stating the obvious but it just compounds far worse
Yes shield fits do naturally increase your sig radius, but sig radius exists in the same rules for gun and missile formula and you can better negate damage because you're faster which means the sig radius penalty is so easily negated purely because you're faster and have higher top speeds. You create more angular velocity against a target, while your sig radius makes you easier to hit, you're faster than the armor equivalent and you create a secondary bottleneck on the ship shooting at you through his tracking. |
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
163
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 03:19:51 -
[155] - Quote
Morihei Akachi wrote:CCP Delegate Zero wrote:As a reminder the meta module signifiers used for these changes are:
- Restrained: lower penalties on use
Still calling technological equipment "restrained," eh? This doesn't get any more plausible merely by virtue of repetition. I doubt I'll be fitting these.
This^
- Meta modules: Compact: Lower fitting requirements Restrained: Lower drawbacks
Please try to get something with a bit more scifi flavor. I'm sure you can find an engineer or three for ideas:
Compact -> Micro/Nano (same functionality, less use of fittings) Restrained -> Enhanced/Optimized/Advanced (if I understood correctly, the item is not actually "restrained", the item is "enhanced" or optimized in such a way that its drawbacks are reduced or restrained) |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
232
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 17:57:15 -
[156] - Quote
Meta 0 and navy plate modules are strangely bulky compared to the rest of the modules in the group. For example meta 0 and navy 1600mm plate is 100 m3 vs the 20 m3 of all other 1600mm plate. Is this a design decision or an oversight, and if it's an oversight could you make the module volumes uniform? |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
427
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 01:59:45 -
[157] - Quote
Not a huge fan of the plate nerfs (non faction) from a raw HP standpoint... they didn't feel broken before - and they gave fleets a reason to fit armor buffer over shield.
From a shield standpoint, looks cool.
Is this on purpose, since you're going to be introducing sov mechanics that will favor nimble multi-pronged attacks; and thus are buffing shield / kiting / sig radius based tactics?
If so, what niche would you see armor fleets fulfilling? |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
793
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 02:11:44 -
[158] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:Not a huge fan of the plate nerfs (non faction) from a raw HP standpoint... they didn't feel broken before - and they gave fleets a reason to fit armor buffer over shield.
From a shield standpoint, looks cool.
Is this on purpose, since you're going to be introducing sov mechanics that will favor nimble multi-pronged attacks; and thus are buffing shield / kiting / sig radius based tactics?
If so, what niche would you see armor fleets fulfilling? Damps to bring them in, tackle to hold them down, blasters to eat them alive.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Anthar Thebess
1046
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 08:21:14 -
[159] - Quote
I see some issues in the module list you provided. You forgot to put there : - Sansha/Serpentis Armor Plates - Angel/Guristas Shield Extenders
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Zarek RedHill
Stringent Method Mordus Angels
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 12:00:51 -
[160] - Quote
re: oversized modules -- I think they should either be impossible OR that you should need to give up a LOT to achieve it. I see MSEs used in frigates currently as a matter of course. IMO you should have to give up a lot of mobility or firepower to achieve this. |
|
Daemun Khanid
Sanctus Imperialis
82
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 20:08:53 -
[161] - Quote
Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
673
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 06:42:45 -
[162] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename.
Which is why I think all modules that have a "sized name" should be changed.
For example, small shield extenders should be called something like 500 GW Shield Extenders. Mediums 1000 GW Shield extenders and large called 2000 GW Shield Extenders.
We don't have small medium and large prop mods or small medium and large armour plates. The sizing names are misleading and make people think that they should be fit to certain sized ships.
EDIT: Excluding weapons because of reasons |
Anthar Thebess
1049
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 08:23:52 -
[163] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename. Which is why I think all modules that have a "sized name" should be changed. For example, small shield extenders should be called something like 500 GW Shield Extenders. Mediums 1000 GW Shield extenders and large called 2000 GW Shield Extenders. We don't have small medium and large prop mods or small medium and large armour plates. The sizing names are misleading and make people think that they should be fit to certain sized ships. EDIT: Excluding weapons because of reasons Lol. Why? No need to change names again.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
675
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:25:43 -
[164] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename. Which is why I think all modules that have a "sized name" should be changed. For example, small shield extenders should be called something like 500 GW Shield Extenders. Mediums 1000 GW Shield extenders and large called 2000 GW Shield Extenders. We don't have small medium and large prop mods or small medium and large armour plates. The sizing names are misleading and make people think that they should be fit to certain sized ships. EDIT: Excluding weapons because of reasons Lol. Why? No need to change names again.
You clearly don't "get it".
If the modules didn't have the pre-fix "Small/Medium/Large" people wouldn't associate them to specific sized ships so much. "Oversizing" modules to ship type wouldn't exist as it would simply be a case of "that ship has the fitting room for that particular module in this setup". |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
196
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 17:50:29 -
[165] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename. Which is why I think all modules that have a "sized name" should be changed. For example, small shield extenders should be called something like 500 GW Shield Extenders. Mediums 1000 GW Shield extenders and large called 2000 GW Shield Extenders. We don't have small medium and large prop mods or small medium and large armour plates. The sizing names are misleading and make people think that they should be fit to certain sized ships. EDIT: Excluding weapons because of reasons Lol. Why? No need to change names again. You clearly don't "get it". If the modules didn't have the pre-fix "Small/Medium/Large" people wouldn't associate them to specific sized ships so much. "Oversizing" modules to ship type wouldn't exist as it would simply be a case of "that ship has the fitting room for that particular module in this setup".
and people still call putting a 100mn afterburner on a cruiser over sizing the prop mod. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
234
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 23:02:21 -
[166] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:Please reconsider the unsurpassable nerf to " 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates ".
They are currently a sub-par, ~600mil, version of normal 1600mm Steel Plates. As killmail data shows, they are nearly completely unused; the number of ships lost using this particular module is on the order of magnitude of a dozen a year.
What killmail data does not show is the one single fit that fuels nearly 100% of the demand for 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates: the dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave linked Rapier. The reason it does not show up on killboards is because it is not used by people who engage into fights they would lose; only smart people use this fit, so there are close to no losses.
The dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave Rapier is literally the only ship fitting that makes use of this module. With your proposed PWG change to the module, you are making impossible roughly all of the ships flown with this module fit. And given the extremely high price of the module, there will be no fit to step up to the plate and make this module worth using again.
tl;dr: Looking at historical market and kill-mail data, by nerfing 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates, you are making the one and only common fit that uses this module impossible, and thus eliminating ~98.5% of the total demand for the module. Given its enormous price and mediocre new stats, there will be no fit on any ship at all that this module will be worth using on. It will go from one of the very few Storyline modules to have a dominant niche to another Storyline module that is never, ever, used.
At one time the 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates used to a popular choice for those doing Incursions with armour tanked ships. I'm not sure if that is the case now.
" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. "-áRick.
" Find out what ? "-áAbraham.
" They're screwing with the wrong people. "-áRick.
Season four.-á-á ' The Walking Dead. ' .
|
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
234
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 23:18:19 -
[167] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:I have a question in regards to COSMOS/Storyline Faction Plates and Extenders, why are the fitting requirements for these being increased and in several instances being harder to fit than the 'compact' meta variants. I thought that Storyline/Cosmos was supposed to have the best fitting requirements?
When the MLUs were 'iterated' recently the storyline ones were given better stats in terms of performance and not just better fitting stats. To my mind this is how it should be with all COSMOS and 'storyline' modules. For the most part COSMOS and 'storyline' modules are very hard to build due to the rarity factor of materials and BPCs and the perilous nature of the locations where the materials are sourced.
T2 modules are, to coin a phrase, as common as muck to acquire so it would seem logical to place COSMOS & Storyline modules in between T2 and Faction in terms of performance AND fittings stats. This would also make the COSMOS system and modules part of the game again whereas at the moment they are largely ignored.
" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. "-áRick.
" Find out what ? "-áAbraham.
" They're screwing with the wrong people. "-áRick.
Season four.-á-á ' The Walking Dead. ' .
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
21562
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 23:56:47 -
[168] - Quote
That 1600 Rolled Tungsten mass addition...
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
|
Anthar Thebess
1057
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 09:39:17 -
[169] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:That 1600 Rolled Tungsten mass addition...
Wormhole gangs will need to rethink their setups. I guess it will be Faction Plates + med grade slave sets.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1177
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 18:00:46 -
[170] - Quote
i like the options now, even if you lose a sizeable chunk when you add in rigs for HP, maybe a little too much, but also brings up other issues of the sig radius of shield ships and the extra sig rigs add on top can make the restrained option not as strong as it ought too be, and cbc's badly need a sig reduction, shield fit drakes and brutix's, vultures etc having battleship sig when fitted is just plain wrong.
Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
|
Vargrh
Transhuman Technologies Inc
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 18:28:25 -
[171] - Quote
Please offer option of keeping the old bracket icons for those that do not want dozens of different symbols for ships moving about in local view. |
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
5590
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 21:21:56 -
[172] - Quote
Removed an off topic post.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
154
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 02:42:53 -
[173] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:That 1600 Rolled Tungsten mass addition... I guess you could say, it got rolled. YEAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!
I'll see myself out.
|
Elwha Lynx
The Red Island Foundation Shadow Cartel
3
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 20:54:19 -
[174] - Quote
Respectfully I'm rather disappointed that in April they modified mods using an improved naming convention, only to completely disregard the improvement by June.
For example, if you market search for say "large shield extender" you entirely miss several flavors because of the inconsistent naming convention.
It's a missed opportunity to simplify the game that I hope gets reconsidered in the future. TY. |
Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
324
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 11:23:10 -
[175] - Quote
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:probag Bear wrote:Please reconsider the unsurpassable nerf to " 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates ".
They are currently a sub-par, ~600mil, version of normal 1600mm Steel Plates. As killmail data shows, they are nearly completely unused; the number of ships lost using this particular module is on the order of magnitude of a dozen a year.
What killmail data does not show is the one single fit that fuels nearly 100% of the demand for 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates: the dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave linked Rapier. The reason it does not show up on killboards is because it is not used by people who engage into fights they would lose; only smart people use this fit, so there are close to no losses.
The dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave Rapier is literally the only ship fitting that makes use of this module. With your proposed PWG change to the module, you are making impossible roughly all of the ships flown with this module fit. And given the extremely high price of the module, there will be no fit to step up to the plate and make this module worth using again.
tl;dr: Looking at historical market and kill-mail data, by nerfing 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates, you are making the one and only common fit that uses this module impossible, and thus eliminating ~98.5% of the total demand for the module. Given its enormous price and mediocre new stats, there will be no fit on any ship at all that this module will be worth using on. It will go from one of the very few Storyline modules to have a dominant niche to another Storyline module that is never, ever, used. At one time the 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates used to a popular choice for those doing Incursions with armour tanked ships. I'm not sure if that is the case now.
His entire complaint is baseless as well, using one of each of the new Bailey plates and Imperial Navy plates results in more armor HP with 1x trimark 1x ACR II than 2x Bailey plates currently give with 2x trimarks. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |